Dittos, 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon
ADVERTISEMENT

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

Queen Bee Pelosi's Triumph of Estrogen: A Result of the Feminization of the Culture

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Nancy Pelosi, we have audio sound bites from her speech yesterday. Wes Pruden put it well today in the Washington Times. Basically the thing to conclude from Pelosi's speech is that estrogen is better than testosterone. Now, I have a story that I have been holding here, and I've been holding this since December 17th, from the American Thinker, one of our favorite think tanks and blogs. The piece is by Selwyn Duke and I've been waiting for just the right occasion. I could have gratuitously done this at any time I saw this story up until now, but had I done it, randomly, indiscriminately without some tie-in to an event, no doubt the charges of sexism and chauvinism and male pigletism would have been leveled at me. But now that we have Pelosi there, we've got her speech, and we've got the way she's conducting herself and the way people are reacting to this.
This piece is entitled, "Extolling The Female Tongue." Let me just give you the lede. ?A long time ago I read a short online piece about how women could get their men to put the toilet seat down. Inherent in it was the idea that this was an example of men?s lack of consideration and that the task at hand was one of disciplining these bad boys. I don?t know, my attitude is that if women can leave a toilet seat down, men can leave it up. Of course, this is just a silly, pebble-in-the-shoe issue, but I see it as a metaphor for a modern phenomenon: The casting of women?s characteristic behaviors as the norm and men?s as dysfunctional deviations.? So, you see, my friends, it fits.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, let's set the stage now. The ascension to power of Nancy Pelosi is a huge female thing more than anything else. To set the stage, just to let you hear some of the idolatry here, Drive-By Media overjoyed, no temper tantrum this year, ladies and gentlemen, with the voters. Here's Charlie Gibson last night on ABC's World News Tonight.
GIBSON: Good evening. From Capitol Hill, it is a hallmark of this American democracy that power transfers peacefully.
RUSH: Yes.
GIBSON: For the first time in the 218-year history of the Congress, a woman was voted by her colleagues to be speaker of the House.
RUSH: Oh!

GIBSON: Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, took the gavel.
RUSH: Yes.
GIBSON: But in a picture perhaps even more symbolic, the new speaker was on the floor for a time holding her six-year-old grandson all the while giving directions in how events were to proceed. It seemed the ultimate in multitasking, taking care of the children and the country.
RUSH: Oh, my God, my God! Can you believe it? Taking care of the children! You see, up 'til now, the children haven't been taken care of. By the way, folks, if you haven't done it, you have to go to RushLimbaugh.com, look at our home page. The graphic, have you been there Snerdley to see the graphic of the Queen Bee Syndrome that we did? You've got to see this. The side by side of Pelosi and Hillary, you gotta study it, though. It is hilarious. Look at Hillary, her wings are down, her little antenna are down. She's dressed as a frumpy Woodstocker with the Birkenstocks and the black leggings. Of course, black has the slimming effect, as we know. It's at RushLimbaugh.com. Here?s Pelosi, she's taking care of the children, and she's taking care of the country, multitasking. Well, let's go a montage of Pelosi, her remarks about working with Republicans.
PELOSI: I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship.
RUSH: Yes.
PELOSI: We may be different parties --
RUSH: Yes.
PELOSI: -- but we serve one country.
RUSH: No, we don't.
PELOSI: In this Congress we must work together.
RUSH: Won't happen.
PELOSI: -- to work together, with the highest ethical standard and with civility and bipartisanship --
RUSH: Yes, nirvana.

PELOSI: -- requires respect for every voice and obligation to reach beyond partisanship --
RUSH: Stop the tape, stop the tape, stop the tape! I wish it only took me one time to say stop the tape. Cue the whole thing back up. I talked over what was going to come next. Openness requires respect for every voice, an obligation to reach beyond partisanship. Well, then why are you shutting the Republicans out of your first hundred hours? I can understand, but don?t sit up there and tell me that you're practicing a new art of bipartisanship. I can understand shutting them out. All right, you got this ready to go from the top? Let's go.
PELOSI: I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership not partisanship.
RUSH: Right, yes.
PELOSI: We may be different parties, but we serve one country.
RUSH: No, we don't.
PELOSI: In this country we must work together --
RUSH: Never happen.
PELOSI: -- to work together, with the highest ethical standard.
RUSH: (Raspberry.)
PELOSI: And with civility and bipartisanship. Openness requires respect for every voice.
RUSH: Yeah.
PELOSI: -- and obligation to reach beyond partisanship. Let us stand together.
RUSH: Yes.
PELOSI: -- to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good.
RUSH: Here's another portion of her remarks in the room, I want to go through these fairly quickly.
PELOSI: I'd like to thank Paul and our five children, Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul, Alexandra and our magnificent grandchildren for their love, for their support, and the confidence they gave me to go from the kitchen to the Congress.
RUSH: Yes, you see, ladies and gentlemen, this is a triumph of feminism and estrogen, as Wes Pruden says today. And ladies, the long 200-year national nightmare without a woman at the top is now over.

PELOSI: We have waited over 200 years, never losing faith. We waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren't just waiting, women were working.
RUSH: Yeah.
PELOSI: Never losing faith.
RUSH: Right.
PELOSI: We worked to redeem the promise of America.
RUSH: Right.
PELOSI: -- that all men, and women, are created equal. (Applause.) For our daughters and our granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling.
RUSH: No, you have cracked it, but you have not broken it. I wonder when she loses next if she'll go back to the kitchen. What do you bet she hasn?t been in the kitchen in a long time anyway? Did you see the Washington Post story about their big bash last night? Now, I just have to share some of the quotes because it's hilarious. You've got people from the unions and feminists and so forth talking about, ?We've got to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor in this country,? and of course it's a thousand bucks to get in there and they're drinking champagne, bilinis, ravioli and this sort of stuff. The Washington Post says, ?Don't you think it's kind of odd here, you people having this opulent feast?? (doing impression) ?Well, yes, it is. We gotta get more of those people out there into things like blah, blah.? It's just hilarious. The idea that Democrats are the lunch pale party and are at one with the American downtrodden is absurd but they get away with the image. They're just as elitist and they're big-time ritzy partiers as anybody else is. All right, here is Pelosi paying lip service to Cindy Sheehan.
PELOSI: The election of 2006 was a call to change, not merely to change the control of Congress.
RUSH: Yes.
PELOSI: But for a new direction for our country.
RUSH: Hm-hm.
PELOSI: Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in the war in Iraq.
RUSH : And at that point Jack Murtha stood up, standing ovation, last time he'll be noticed. Pelosi will see to that. But of course she's wrong about all of these things that she credits for their electoral victory. But anyway, you get the point here, Charlie Gibson going on and on, ?Ah, first woman in 218 years, this is marvelous, multitasking, she can give directions on what to do plus care for her grandchildren so she can take care of the country and children at the same time.? Now, this piece from the American Thinker, "Extolling The Female Tongue," has as its premise that there is a modern phenomenon, and that is the casting of women's characteristic behaviors as the norm and men's characteristic behaviors as dysfunctional deviations. He starts out with a humorous illustration about the toilet seat. But it's still a good example.
You never hear a guy complaining that his wife left the toilet seat up, whatever it is, it's not a concern for me anyway, I have my own toilet. But you do hear women complain about men, toothpaste and all this sort of stuff. It is set up so that the male behavior is what's not normal, it's what needs to be corrected, whatever it is that the women do in these domestic situations, whatever their characteristics are, those are norm and men are not. ?This is strikingly obvious with the topic of 'communication.' Man has long known that women were the more loquacious sex, and you?ve probably heard of studies to this effect. A recent book states that women have about 20,000 'communication events' (I love these terms the psycho-babblers conjure up) a day, versus about 7,000 for men. But this is nothing new; who didn?t know a bevy of garrulous girls in school??
They're always sitting around chatting, and men have been making jokes about it ever since the cave days. There are these normal behaviors and characteristics that men and women have, and they are different in many ways. They're wired differently, men and women's brains are wired differently, yet we have, because of modern feminism and the feminization of our culture, led everybody to think that the normal male characteristics are somehow in desperate need of fixing and correction. They are predators. They are brutes. They are insensitive and so forth, slothful. All they do is earn a living, and that's not enough.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: If you're just joining us, for a few moments here we?re bouncing off the impression being left by the Drive-By Media and Nancy Pelosi herself that somehow we are a better country now and we're in better hands because a woman is speaker of the House. It's sort of like when I lived in New York City and General Dinkins, mayor for life David Dinkins won the mayoralty there, first black mayor. The newspapers the next day talked about how the hobos were nicer, the homeless were not quite as provocative, the birds were chirping louder, sky was bluer, grass was greener, everybody in the subway was nice as they could be, all this stupid, silly symbolism.
We're all human beings here. We are all people, and the idea that only certain of us are qualified or only certain of us make things better, and that some things like our gender are alone singular qualifications for being better than somebody else, that's the impression being left here. I know tied up in it is the age-old liberal complaint that all of these minorities, anybody who's not a white male, has been living a life of utter oppression and depravity and they've been eating dirt for 215 years, and now finally we're starting to turn the tables, and now we've got the women in charge. How many years of the women have we had? These things just keep cycling themselves. What this does, folks, very subtly and over a long period of time, it causes us to recede into groups of various kinds. It reduces the whole concept of individualism, and we're not going to judge.
I mean, the whole idea here that all of woman kind has been raised up by virtue of Nancy Pelosi becoming speaker is absurd. It?s so absurd that one of the latest Democrats, one of the new freshmen, Heath Shuler, not the sharpest knife in the drawer to begin with, I have a story in which he says his two-year-old daughter, who he named Island, his two-year-old daughter is inspired by Nancy Pelosi's ascension to the speakership. Now, Heath, I don't have children --(interruption) What? What do you mean, ?Oh, come on?? Of course it can't be. His two-year-old can't possibly know who Pelosi is, other than as a cartoon figure on television. Maybe Pelosi breast-fed her when the kid was -- who knows. She's capable of doing everything else. But a two-year-old being inspired, "Daddy!? Do two-year-olds talk? Tell me. Do they know the word inspire? They don't know the word inspire, do they? "Daddy, daddy, Mrs. Pelosi, she inspires me. I want to be just like Miss Pelosi, dad."
Come on, folks, what kind of insanity are we dealing with here? So I've been holding this piece from December 17th from the American Thinker called, "Extolling The Female Tongue." It's by a guy named Selwyn Duke, who is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker, and his premise is that we now have so acculturated our society to the feminist motif that women's natural characteristics are considered normal, men's national characteristics are not. He focuses quite a bit here on speech and talking and so forth, and I'd like to expand it a little bit beyond that. But he said, ?What is new is the assumption that this imputes superiority to women.? The chattiness, all of the communication events, a book he quotes described women have 20,000 communication events a day, men only 7,000 communication events a day, and the assumption is that this imputes superiority to women.
?Communication has become one of the buzzwords of modern psychology. And, whenever relationships are at issue ? be it in a book, article, talk or interview ? almost invariably an 'expert' will inform us of two things. One is that women communicate more than men. The other is that an onus belongs on men as this 'handicap' of theirs is an impediment to good relations.? They just don't have as many communication events in a day as women do, and this is why there are problems in relationships because men just don't talk. They don't have enough communication -- try telling that to me. Anyway, ?Why, men need to learn to communicate more and share their feelings, we?re told.?
See, everything is oriented here around making men like women because women are supposedly fine and dandy and normal and men aren't. ?Did anyone ever think that maybe women communicate too darn much?? They have too many communication events? I'm raising my hand. Folks, this is not about sexism. I'll be glad to answer a question once. By the 25th time I have to answer the same question, I start losing my temper, especially if I've answered it once or twice or three times this week, and next week the whole thing comes again, and I have to answer the whole thing again. Usually the questions require me to defend my behavior, to explain why I am the way I am. I clam up at that point, because I say, ?What's the point here?? I refuse to be put on the defensive, the assumption being that somehow I am cockeyed or wrong or weird or odd.

?Don?t get me wrong, rhetorical license aside, I understand the importance of communication. What bothers me, though, is the knee-jerk assumption here that more is better, a conclusion that most of the same researchers take great pains to forestall when the issue is, oh, let?s say, the greater size of the male brain.? We're not going to talk about that. ?But this is a principle of sex differences research: When men have more, more is less. When women have less, less is more. And that?s it, more or less. What seems to escape most is that this modern exaltation of the lip lies in stark contrast to what wisdom has taught since time immemorial.?
Shakespeare: Brevity is the soul of wit. ?And the truth she imparts is obvious, which is why sayings encapsulating it abound: 'Still waters run deep,' 'Empty kettles make the most noise,' 'Shallow brooks are noisy' and 'There are two kinds of people who don't say much, those who are quiet and those who talk a lot.' It?s why movies have always portrayed the strong, silent type who exhibits quiet fortitude as the most heroic of men.? Think Clint Eastwood. He doesn't talk much. ?It?s why good writers value verbosity no more than good surgeons do bloodletting.?
One other thing on this. ?Just imagine how it might be if incessant channel-surfing were a characteristic female behavior.? How many of you men -- and this is amazing. This is not sexist. To me it is anthropologically, sociologically fascinating as a case study. It seems there are exceptions to this, but the whole notion of surfing quickly through ? like, I have watched football games with women in the past, and I will not watch just one. If there are five games on, I'm going to see what's going on on all of them, I'm not going to wait 'til the highlights. So to do that you gotta surf, and you wait for commercials or time-outs or whatever. I have had women say, ?I want to watch football with you.? Fine, sit. They walk out of the room after about ten minutes of channel surfing because they can't handle it. And, of course, well, that is a male trait that somehow represents a deficiency.
The fact that women don't surf is considered superior and normal. ?You can't commit to one game,? but it's not that. Let me just read this guy's paragraph. ?Just imagine how it might be if incessant channel-surfing were a characteristic female behavior. It would only be a matter of time before some sickologists conducted a study and portrayed it as yet another example of feminine superiority. It would go something like this: Channel-surfing is akin to speed-reading, not a function of a fault but indicative of a unique ability. Because women have more neural connections between the two hemispheres of the brain, they can process information faster, allowing them to absorb the substance and assess the value of a given program in mere seconds. Thus, while a man may perceive just a brief snapshot of seemingly unintelligible imagery and sound, his wife has already assimilated the program?s relevant information or ascertained it to be devoid of such. 'She is anxious to read the next page while he is still on the first paragraph of the last,' said Dr. Delilah Emasculata.?
In fact, channel surfing represents supreme curiosity. Channel surfing represents an idea that there is a smorgasbord of opportunity out there and you want to sample as much of it as you can, and to say that it is somehow a negative trait of men and because women don't do it, they are superior. Now you may say, ?Why are you spending so much time on it?? Because I'm just trying to prepare you now that Pelosi is there. We've through this with Hillary, we've been through this with year of the woman, but now we have a woman holding the gavel. We are being told by her and the Drive-By Media that this is something brand-new and revolutionary and better than we have ever, ever had. Note, we've never had old grandpa Newt up there with the kids on his lap because he didn't care about kids, that's the assumption, men just don't care. Kids are fine as long as they're at home and the woman is raising them, but don't bring 'em to the office, that's the image that is -- but look at Ms. Pelosi.
Why, she can multitask, she can breast-feed, she can clip her toenails, she can direct the House all while the kid's sitting on her lap at the same time. Take care of children, take care of the country at the same time, never, ever been done before. It's all about the feminization of the culture. If you think I'm going overboard on this, stay tuned for the next story. It is from the UK, "Boys and Girls Need Separate Classes." Boys should be taught separately to stop them falling further behind girls as part of an extensive overhaul of the education system. Why is this happening? Because feminization has taken over the public school curriculum in the UK as it has here because it used to be that boys were favored, you can't do this, the girls aren't learning anything, they don't even raise their hands, they're afraid to open up in class. So we had to start favoring the girls. Then we segregated them, we didn't segregate them, put them back together, we integrated them. Now all of a sudden the boys are not even going to college in nearly the numbers they used to because they're just wandering aimlessly in life looking for a gun and an SUV.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yeah, I take it back. Not all guys forsake college and instead try to find an SUV with a gun. Some of them do go to college like Duke and when they do they end up being besmirched and charged with rape when there's actually no evidence they've done it and a whole faculty and administration throw 'em overboard under the preconception that women never lie and men are predators. Well, there's an update here. (story)
?A former Duke University lacrosse player sued the university Thursday, alleging that one of his professors unfairly gave him a failing grade because he was a member of the team. Kyle Dowd, 22, graduated in 2006,? two months after the woman said she was raped at the lacrosse team party. The lawsuit alleges that visiting professor Kim Curtis, female, gave him an F in a politics and literature class that nearly prevented him from graduating even though he had earned passing grades on his assignments up to that point. According to the lawsuit, only one other person in the 40 student class received an F, and that was another lacrosse player. According to the lawsuit, Kim Curtis told Dowd, the lacrosse player that he got a failing grade for participation because he hadn't attended class, and because he made wrong statements in a paper. The lawsuit claims that Dowd missed six out of 30 classes, one an excused absence for a lacrosse match, the other five resulting because of the criminal investigation involving the lacrosse team.
The lawsuit also states that Curtis, a visiting professorette who specialized in political theory and feminist theory, was listed in support of an advertisement in the Duke chronicle that sympathized with the alleged victim. The lawsuit also states that this visiting female professor of feminist theory, Kim Curtis sent an e-mail to students in her class letting them know that she was available to talk about how this is affecting you and what we should do as a community. The university overturned the failing grade, gave him a P for passing grade, and he was able to graduate. I want to find out who this babe is, and, I'll tell you what, I guarantee you, folks, this is as nice as I can say it, I will assure you Kim Curtis was never invited to the prom.
From her web page on the Duke server, listed as research interests, ?Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science, specializes in political theory with particular concentration in contemporary continental work and feminist theory. She has written Our Sense of the Real: Aesthetic Experience and Arendtian Politics. She has also published articles on multicultural education, ethical debates among feminists over new reproductive technologies, and the early women's liberation movement. She is currently at work on a book on the feminist movement in the United States that examines the relationship between theory and practice.?
Now, I'm going to read what's next on her website that she wrote, and I swear to you I'm reading it verbatim, I'm adding nothing. ?Efforts to silence dissenting voices indeed orchestrate feelings in the service of a docile and reactionary patriotism. In crippling the range of permissible feeling, these acts foster a citizenry incapable of elementary responsibility of democratic citizenship. To think what we are doing and have done, we must embrace the task of learning a more complicated history of who we are by learning what we've done and understanding the effects of our deeds upon others. And for this we must draw on the full range of our republic's feelings and thoughts. Let freedom ring.?
Now, this is the caliber of professor that parents of students at Duke are paying $40,000 a year for the privilege of attending class with. This is a woman who flunked the guy simply because he was at the party, she bought into it totally because it fits her cockeyed preconception and misconception of the ingredients of this story: poor black woman, rich elitist white guy, lacrosse player and so forth, and so he is suing the university and her. They're not asking a lot, it was 60,000 bucks, they're not going for millions and millions and millions of dollars here, $60,000 in real and punitive damages. They want some money but they're doing this to make a point.
This whole thing, folks, that happened at Duke University is a classic illustration of what I am talking about, which is the feminization of our culture and the assumption has been building over the years -- decades, actually -- that women's behavior, their normal characteristics are superior and men's normal characteristics are questionable, we should be dangerous and we should be afraid. Men's normal characteristics have to be fixed one way or the other. Now we've got one of these Kim Curtis types running the House of Representatives. I am just warning you people.

END TRANSCRIPT

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Watch Live Listen Live

original

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: